Hilary Benn

Boris Johnson , the decision to suspend Parliament , is an unlawful abuse of power, lawyers businesswoman Gina Miller represents have to say.

Outlined that your case is said against the agreement at The High Court in London, Lord Pannick QC, it violates the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

He added that a five-week suspension was the "extraordinary length", namely, in most cases it was for a week or less.

Mr. Johnson's lawyers argued the agreement was a political, not a legal matter.

A verdict is expected on Friday morning.

A similar legal challenge at Edinburgh's Court of Session on Wednesday failed.

In the year 2017, Gina Miller won a case, the Minister stopped the release of the article 50 procedure, with the UK leaves the EU Without a vote in Parliament .

The Prime Minister announced on 28. August he wanted the five-week Shutdown , a Process known as an agreement at the beginning of the next week.

This means that MPs and peers will not be back in the Parliament to 14. In October of The Queen 's speech, when Mr. Johnson says he will outline his "exciting programme" for the new term.

- a challenge to the legality of the agreement - will be heard by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett and two other leading judges.

the opening of the hearing, Lord Pannick, said Mr Johnson saw the Parliament as a "threat to the implementation of its policy," and, in particular, the question of whether a deal could be with the EU.

He said that the reason of Mr Johnson for the suspension of Parliament - the introduction of a new programme of Legislation , which do not require a five-week suspension.

And he asked the question: "If the Prime Minister can, not the courts, to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, then why would he advise not to be able to Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for a long period of time?"/p>

Lord Pannick also said that in its submission, the Prime Minister "has made it very clear" that he regards the Parliament as a "nuisance" and a "disadvantage".

He pointed to a note from Mr Johnson's own handwriting, they said, the entire September session of the Parliament was introduced in a fuss, to show The Public that the MPs earn their Crust and he saw nothing "particularly shocking" about this agreement.

Lord Pannick argued that this showed, Mr Johnson did not understand The Role of the Parliament to propose and consider Legislation , and hold the Government responsible, during "a critical period".

Another document released to the court The Minutes of the Cabinet of the telephone conference on 28 August, in which Boris Johnson , the Minister warned that there is a "high probability" he would, a New Deal with the EU on Brexit.

In a summary, concluding remarks on the progress of the talks with Brussels, read The Minutes : "the completion of the Prime Minister said that the progress made with the EU should not be exaggerated, but it was substantial.

"While it was a good chance that a deal could be secured, there is a high chance that he can't do it. "

days earlier, in a BBC interview in the G7 summit, Mr Johnson had said that a deal was "touch and go".

In his case, Lord Pannick went on to point out that the court is invited to Express a view about the wisdom of Britain leaving the European Union , and what measures should be taken before 1. November.

"If the agreement is declared unlawful, it is only the Parliament will decide what to do, when it sits during the corresponding five weeks.

"relates to Our case - and-that - with topics from Law ," he said.

In answer, Sir James Eadie QC, representing Mr Johnson, are argued proroguing Parliament was an inherently political act, not a matter for the courts and Law .

He also said the seats in Parliament , was a matter of constitutional Convention rather than Law , and judges cannot Tinker with the conventions, as they are a matter of political balance.

Sir James Gina Miller 's attorney rejected the claim that the agreement was intended to deprive Parliament of Escape, an ability to adopt Legislation , in particular, in relation to a no-deal.

"The show's last days [in Westminster], that is simply untenable, in fact," he said, adding that recent events have shown, the "political whirlpool in which the court is invited".

Sir John Major , the former Conservative Prime Minister , was to go ahead in the face of the world with a legal action and intervene in the case, in writing.

He believes that Mr. Johnson ' s move, designed to prevent deputies Escape against a no-deal.

Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, who is Scotland's senior Law officer, the Welsh Government and the shadow attorney-General Shami Chakrabarti have also given permission to intervene in writing.

It is not possible to assemble they believe a legal challenge to The Queen , the consent of the suspension, but Sir John and Ms Miller, you can legally challenge the Council of The Queen 's Prime Minister gives her.

Today, the legal battle between Gina Miller and the Government , in its second major constitutional challenge coming to the power relationship between the Minister and Parliament - to a headline question and what a very fine judgment.

it Has? Boris Johnson , is obviously an abuse of his power, by advising The Queen to prorogue Parliament for an extraordinary five weeks and be able to do the judges do not mind if he did it

Ms Miller QC, Lord Pannick, avoided, suggesting that the Prime Minister have The Right to put a stop to the areas of parliamentary business in the run-up to The Queen the speech.

He focused on the manner in which Mr. Johnson went over the agreement and its duration, if "Time Is of The Essence ".

The result can feel academic, because the progress of the no-deal Brexit-blocking bill in the upper house.

But the Supreme court could, what is the conclusion of the judgment-breaking, finally, to a rail on the sovereignty of Parliament .

In Scotland, a group of politicians trying to overturn a court verdict on Wednesday that Mr Johnson's hazards plan down Parliament before Brexit is, in fact, legal.

Lord Doherty, sitting at the Court of Session, said the Prime Minister had not broken the laws by The Queen for a five-week suspension, as it was for Parliament and not the electorate that the Prime Minister act in the courts.

The Group of More Than 70 largely pro-Remain politicians, under the leadership of the SNP-MP-Joanna Cherry , argue that Mr Johnson, exceeds his powers and trying to undermine the democracy by avoiding parliamentary scrutiny before the UK, the EU is leaving on the 31. October.

According to Mr Doherty ' s decision, a UK Government spokesman said: "We welcome the court's decision and hope that those who want to thwart the use of the judiciary, the Government and withdraw their cases. "

In Belfast, a voice for the victims of the problems is due to the in order to bring a case, argued on Friday that no-could jeopardize the deal, the Northern Ireland peace Process .

The lawyers of Raymond McCord, whose son was murdered by the loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force in the years 1997 - argue no-deal compromise would Good Friday agreement and the suspension of Parliament is unconstitutional.

At a preliminary hearing on Thursday, a lawyer for the Government in the case, argued for a delay Hilary Benn said no offer Brexit Bill had "changed the paradigm", and changed the need for an urgent decision.

But Mr McCord's lawyer said the case was ready to go and, while he "looked As If " The Bill would become Law , "we know".

He also said he was "unfortunately, the proposal" that the Government might keep The Law .

Source of news: bbc.com